IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2016s-26.html

Leaving the market or reducing the coverage?

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Corcos
  • François Pannequin
  • Claude Montmarquette

Abstract

This study develops an experimental analysis addressing the premium sensitivity of the demand for insurance accounting for risk attitudes, including risk-loving. Our contribution disentangles the conditional demand (the non-null demand for insurance) from the propensity to buy insurance. Our research shows that the contraction of the global demand for insurance induced by the raise in unit prices and fixed cost is primarily due to policyholders exiting the insurance market rather than reducing their levels of coverage. However, contrary to the theoretical predictions, an increase in the fixed cost has effects only on the risk lovers’ behavior. The stability of the conditional demand is robust to changes in insurance contracts and individuals’risk attitude. These results suggest that the decision about insurance may boil down to an “all or nothing” choice. In line with the theory, risk lovers express a lower global demand for insurance than risk-averse subjects and are the first to leave the insurance market when the premium (unit price or fixed cost) is prohibitive. Implications regarding public and economic policies are discussed. As a by-product, our experimental design enables to test and reject the assumption of inferiority of the risk averters’ demand for insurance.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2016. "Leaving the market or reducing the coverage?," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-26, CIRANO.
    • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2016s-26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2016s-26.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christoph Engel & Peter G. Moffat, 2012. "Estimation of the House Money Effect Using Hurdle Models," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2012_13, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    2. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    3. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    5. L. Eeckhoudt & C. Gollier & H. Schlesinger, 2005. "Economic and financial decisions under risk," Post-Print hal-00325882, HAL.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    8. Alma Cohen & Liran Einav, 2007. "Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 745-788, June.
    9. Neil Esho & Anatoly Kirievsky & Damian Ward & Ralf Zurbruegg, 2004. "Law and the Determinants of Property‐Casualty Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 71(2), pages 265-283, June.
    10. Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2016. "Hypothetical Surveys And Experimental Studies Of Insurance Demand: A Review," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 217-255, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2017. "Statistical Tests of the Demand for Insurance: An “All or Nothing” Decision," CIRANO Working Papers 2017s-07, CIRANO.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2017. "Leaving the market or reducing the coverage? A model-based experimental analysis of the demand for insurance," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 836-859, December.
    2. Pannequin, François & Corcos, Anne & Montmarquette, Claude, 2020. "Are insurance and self-insurance substitutes? An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 797-811.
    3. François Pannequin & Anne Corcos & Claude Montmarquette, 2016. "Behavioral foundations of the substitutability between insurance and self-insurance: An experimental study," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-12, CIRANO.
    4. Ali E. Abbas & Il-Horn Hann, 2010. "Measuring Risk Aversion in a Name-Your-Own-Price Channel," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 123-136, March.
    5. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    6. Claire Mouminoux & Jean-Louis Rullière & Stéphane Loisel, 2018. "Obfuscation and Honesty Experimental Evidence on Insurance Demand with Multiple Distribution Channels," Working Papers hal-01819522, HAL.
    7. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2017. "Statistical Tests of the Demand for Insurance: An “All or Nothing” Decision," CIRANO Working Papers 2017s-07, CIRANO.
    8. James C. Cox & Eike B. Kroll & Marcel Lichters & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt, 2019. "The St. Petersburg paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: an experimental study," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 27-44, April.
    9. Glenn W. Harrison & Jia Min Ng, 2019. "Behavioral insurance and economic theory: A literature review," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 133-182, July.
    10. Cavatorta, Elisa & Groom, Ben, 2014. "Preferences and Exposure to Shocks: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Palestine," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100592, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Johannes Kasinger & Dmitrij Schneider, 2024. "Skewness Preferences: Evidence from Online Poker," CESifo Working Paper Series 10977, CESifo.
    12. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2013. "Worker or Shirker – Who Evades More Taxes? A Real Effort Experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201326, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    13. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    14. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Peter Martinsson & Haileselassie Medhin & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35, June.
    15. Anat Bracha, 2016. "Investment decisions and negative interest rates," Working Papers 16-23, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    16. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "When do reference points update? A field analysis of the effect of prior gains and losses on risk-taking over time," Working Papers 369, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    17. Joyita Banerji & Kaushik Kundu & Parveen Ahmed Alam, 2023. "The Impact of Behavioral Biases on Individuals’ Financial Choices under Uncertainty: An Empirical Approach," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 11(3), pages 401-424, September.
    18. Nick Feltovich & Atsushi Iwasaki & Sobei H. Oda, 2012. "Payoff Levels, Loss Avoidance, And Equilibrium Selection In Games With Multiple Equilibria: An Experimental Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(4), pages 932-952, October.
    19. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.
    20. Ronald Bosman & Frans Van Winden, 2010. "Global Risk, Investment and Emotions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(307), pages 451-471, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2016s-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.